Grammarly is being sued after a journalist claimed the company used real writers and editors as AI-generated “experts” without their permission. This has fueled criticism about how AI tools use public identities to promote their products.
The lawsuit focuses on Grammarly’s now-disabled “Expert Review” feature, which gave feedback as if it came from well-known authors, academics, and journalists.
Journalist Julia Angwin leads the proposed class action
TechCrunch reported that Julia Angwin has filed a class action lawsuit against Superhuman, the parent company of Grammarly. She claims the company violated the privacy and publicity rights of her and other writers by using their names in the feature.
The tool used the names of hundreds of experts, including novelist Stephen King, the late scientist Carl Sagan, tech journalist Kara Swisher, and AI ethicist Timnit Gebru.
Angwin said, “I have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.” The lawsuit also allows other affected writers to join the case.
WIRED also reported that the lawsuit targets Grammarly’s AI Expert Review feature for giving editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics—without their consent.
The publication noted that Angwin is the only named plaintiff so far, but the lawsuit claims that damages for the proposed class are over $5 million.
“Expert Review” drew criticism for both consent and quality
The controversy is not only about permission.
The feature, available to subscribers paying $144 a year, often produced feedback that was so generic it raised questions about why Grammarly used recognizable names and reputations in the first place.
Cite an example from Casey Newton, founder of the newsletter Platformer, who tested the tool and received comments attributed to Grammarly’s approximation of Kara Swisher.
WIRED reported that the feature turned well-known people into virtual editors, even though none of whom consented to have their names appear within the product. This led to more criticism, as the tool was not just inspired by public writing but used personal identity and professional reputation in a commercial product.
Grammarly disabled the feature after backlash
Grammarly has now disabled the “Expert Review” feature. Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra announced the change in a LinkedIn post, apologized, but still defended their idea behind the tool.
Mehrotra said, “Imagine your professor sharpening your essay, your sales leader reshaping a customer pitch, a thoughtful critic challenging your arguments, or a leading expert elevating your proposal.”
WIRED also reported that Grammarly shut down the feature on Wednesday, after mounting criticism and the filing of the suit.
BBC reporting on the dispute likewise described the case as centering on claims that writers’ identities were used to create AI editorial personas without consent.
Case adds to growing pressure on AI companies
The lawsuit comes as AI companies face more scrutiny over how they use names, likenesses, and creative work in their products. Here, the dispute is not just about training data, but about whether a company can offer a simulated version of a writer’s judgment as a product feature.
For Grammarly, the legal and reputational risks now go beyond a simple product mistake. This case may determine if using a real author’s name, voice, and editorial identity in an AI tool is legal when no permission was given.
